Let’s be clear on health risks from radiation

Should Californians have had iodine after Fukushima? In Radiation Robert Peter Gale and Eric Lax clear up the confusion over radiation and health

CIGARETTE smokers have three times the amount of polonium-210 in their blood as non-smokers. Some medical uses of radiation expose us to a higher dose in one go than smokers get in a year, yet many are happy to accept these radiation risks.

Compare this with the global alarm following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. As Robert Peter Gale and Eric Lax tell us in Radiation, Californians reacted to the news by buying iodine tablets, which in the circumstances were “as useful as Californians buying raincoats to protect them from rain falling in Barcelona”.

Humans are ill-equipped to deal with uncertainty, and we know too much about the uncertainties around data on health risks from radiation. Gale is a doctor specialising in treating patients exposed to high doses of radiation, and Lax is a scientific writer. Touring through various scenarios, from nuclear accidents to irradiated food, they show how our inability to put risk into context can have serious consequences.

They start with an account of an incident in Goiania, Brazil. In 1987, radiotherapy equipment was stolen and the thieves, tempted by the alluring blue glow inside, dismantled it carelessly. Because they didn’t know how to handle and contain radiation many people were exposed to variable doses of caesium-137, some with fatal consequences.

Mishandling is not the only danger that flows from a dearth of proper knowledge about radiation. Confusion over the risks to health, both on the part of the public and politicians, can lead to

To continue reading this premium article, subscribe for unlimited access.